Why was it bad for Clinton to have an affair but not George W. Bush?

It seems that Republicans are more prude than Democrats, and since they could not find any political way to bring Clinton into disrepute (remember, he balanced the national budget, while our children will still pay for the massive debts Bush has run up), they grasped the one little straw that offered itself: Clinton's unusually high sex drive.

Maybe it was just envy, but they made a big thing of it.

I would despise any woman who would want to have an affair with Bush, and I cannot understand how he ever found a wife (although his millions might have helped a little). The man is so revolting, as an individual as well as a politician, that a woman would have to be masochistic to get involved with him.

On the other hand, the Repuclican party is filled with f***ing sleezeballs, and many of them have affairs and go to prostitutes as well. But the Democrats are too tolerant to pursue them for that.

As far as I am concerned, I prefer a man who loves sex and sometimes overdoes it a bit to a criminal, war monger and religious bigot.

Well man, if this is just breaking, you may find that it grows into a much larger story as people find things out.

I believe that no politician should be judged on their private lives, but at the same time, they are our elected representatives, so they can expect media attention. There is some suggestion that they should recognise this, and act in a moral fashion rather than abusing their privileges, but we can see that's not always the case. Like you say, the media can be biased, but you'll find that the bias swings depending on where the vested interests are.

Like, it's better to have a sex scandal than a full scale investigation of the integrity of our leaders as a result of certain, should I say, recent military action. If a story could do real damage to someone who was inexpendable, then it would be clamped down on, possibly before it was released. If the story is allowed, then whoever it's about is not, or is no longer, inexpendable to the way government is working. Either that, or they tell a little truth so that a big lie stands. That's all.

Not that I would believe this kind of crap but most likely, nobody held Clinton up for his relgious faith. How many Christian Right people follow or advise Bush? Bush has said many times of his strong faith and his religious beliefs. I seem to remember a lot of jokes and cartoons about Bush's supposed drinking problems, sure not in the widespread media outlets but if the media is so controlled by the Republicans then wouldn't these other outlets be more censored?

Huh? Bush isn't having an affair.

And with Clinton, it wasn't an affair, it was serial affairs, the 2 most noted would be considered sexual harassment in any other office.

As for Clinton's drug connections, don't overlook that his brother was a druggie, and in one sting operation said that his brother (Bill) had a nose like a vaccuum cleaner. Clinton also pardoned a major drug dealer in Arkansas. Hmmmm...

As for the media, do you think the Dan Rather 'fake but accurate' reporting on the fake Bush AWOL hoax is right wing? Or the constant touting of his low popularity in polls? Or the jump to cast aspersions on our soldiers in the Abu Ghraib abuses? Or the fake reporting and blind belief in the prisoners' stories from Gitmo? Or the blatant failure to report on all the positive things happening in Iraq?

Please, spare us the delusion.

Both Clinton's and Bush's sex lives are none of our concern. What should be our concern is how Bush lied to us to get us to invade a country that was no threat to us. That makes us terrorists. It should also concern us about the impeachable offenses that Bush has committed like wiretapping Americans without a warrant. Bush was asleep at the wheel when 9/11 happened and yet he has not recieved the blame for it that he clearly deserves. I don' care who our president sleeps with. I just want him to work for all of us and not just the rich.

I do not think it is bad for either one as far as running the country what they do in their private lives should be their business. However I do take issue with the direction that George Bush has taken for this country, it is entirely in the wrong direction and most likely criminal.

"was it bad for clinton to have gotten us attacked by terrorists but not for George Bush to try and fight them"

If this isn't a joke, you're the dumbest person on earth

The so-called proof you offer is nothing but tabloid insanity, and even you should be ashamed.

Stop trying to allow the terrorists to win!

was it bad for clinton to have gotten us attacked by terrorists but not for George Bush to try and fight them

It all boils down to the criminal Republican mantra of; "do as I say and not as I do", if you don't your branded as un-American or subversive. It really is unbelievable.